Lucky...

and you contend this is only a "conservative" symptom? I don't know what to say to that other than NUTS- reference your own reasonable notes about nutjobs on both sides of all arguments *** It seems nuts to you because you read, "Extremism is easily found with anti-choice type protocols." And infer "always conservative." Anti-abortion, anti-gun, etc, to me these are extremist ideologies. I never isolated extremism to the right, you felt the need to unilatterally revise my statement; are you an extremist?

Why? - "where do you draw the fine line" debates are tedious and non-productive. This is about general freedoms in the major sense, not pissy details. (Answer the question? Inmates shouldn't be armed.) Your turn - you belief in a 40-60% tax bracket - So, to answer an annoying repetitive question equivalent to John's, did you overpay to 40-60% this year? {{cloudy weekend days suck, jumping is more fun than killing time here - Gotta go workout, I'll check in later}} Because it's dishonest to avoid basic questions: Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms? The question wasn't that of inmates, it was that of convicted felons; the obvious inference was that of released fleons on parole or even affter their parole is expired. Care to answer? >>>>>>> Your turn - you belief in a 40-60% tax bracket - So, to answer an annoying repetitive question equivalent to John's, did you overpay to 40-60% this year? I love to answer questions. I see you have thread drifted, but that's ok. 40-60% TOP MARGINAL RATE is what I refer to as being optimal. In my piss-poor brkt, no. When the top 20% hold 93% of all cash, how is it logical to tax that group (far lower end))virtually at all? to ask the bottom few % to pay what they don't have is ridiculous. I drive a 1996 car with >200k miles and you think it's workable to pay 40-60%? Or are you posturing. I answered your question, why not take this thread back to it's place and start a new taxation thread or hijack an existing one for this debate.

I'm good with this. Note Extremism is easily found with the pro-choice types too since you single out one side typically - (abortion on demand right up to the ninth month and gov pays).... That is extremism, late term abortions are not advocated by the masses. But you want to take a few and have them represent the masses who support abortion rights??? Why? Actually, I think 3 things should happen to mediate to all: 1) Abortions illegal 2) Single payer HC 3) Free condoms, vasectomies, tubilagations, and sex education which is mandatory in schools. The moralists would be happy with the outlawed abortions since it is about the welfare of people, right? The left would be happy, HC for everyone as it is about the people, right? And we would have a more responsible society. Yet we have the nutty moralists saying NO ABORTIONS, IT'S BAD TO HURT PEOPLE; CARE FOR PEOPLE.... HC...uh, no, fuck people. The the libs saying to GIVE US HC, HOW CAN YOU BE SO INSENSITIVE AS TO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE..... uh, abortions? Nah, fuck that, they aren't people yet. So the hypocrisy goes both ways, I say we appease both sides with the above 3 measures.

You have to establish that gun revocation leads to increased crime. The, "in some theories" is teh part I have a hard time with. Crime is crime whether by a knife, gun, club or????. So show me that gun revocation could likely lead to incr crime rates, and don't use NRA sites, etc. I'm not saying either way, if you want to make a point, I would be interested in your research, until then I'm with the position that gun revocation would not lead to an incr crime rate. OTOH, I would feel naked on interstate trips and the sort. It might lead to isolated case where people were now victimized by not being able to defend themselves, but as a major crime rate incr, I don't see it; let's see your objective imperical data. The whole signage to attract attention and wear your politics on your sleeve is a product of a sick extremist. See how conservatives need to root people out and label them? I'm a vegetarian, I abhore hunting, I would never consider physically labeling hunters to show my position on the issue. It's about extremism; the way I see it, they hang more on the right than the left.

how much extra tax did you volunteer to pay this April? (Convicted? I guess that depends on the rules the jail has for their inmates?) Answer the question.

"live and let live liberal" anti-gunner chooses not to own guns but lets other decide for themselves "other liberal" anti-gunner chooses not to own guns and pushes for legislation for others not to own guns either glad you are the first kind you can label that "liberal" if you like, but a lot of others here that also label themselves 'liberal' are the second kind that's what you get with labels..... a more accurate label, instead of lib vs cons - would be pro or anti "right to bear arms" Same with pro-choice vs anti-choice I guess. Extremism is easily found with anti-choice type protocols. Anti-gun, anti-abortion, anti-taxation, etc. I don't subscribe to prohibitionists in virtually all cases, but then we have the other end, the type that wants no controls, no taxes, etc....they are as whacky as the other en.

Trying to have a sensible discussion with lucky is virtually impossible. Trying to have a civil discussion with him is even tougher. Lately I just drop out of a discussion once he starts his "fascist Pig Ronnie" rhetoric. If he wants to claim victory, then he can go right ahead. He only proves over and over that he is incapable of conversation with anyone with an IQ over 37. 2 posts in a row with zero reference to the issue, just 100% ad hominem. Can you say: ASS HANDED TO YOU?

So you have no answer....er, is it you have to simultaneous answers that are polar opposites? No, what you said was: POST #13 by airdvr: As much as I abhore the border problem this is not the answer. Then you said: ...and the feds are disregarding existing laws... I showed you the billions the feds are spending: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...fy2008/homeland.html And now the feds aren't holding up their end of the deal . So what should the fed do? Enact a bounty on brown people? Kill em all and let god sort em out? No, the feds react by passing and enacting laws, which they have, and then throw money at a problem to enforce, which they've done, yet they're not holding up their end of the deal? I never said you did. Did you agree with Reagan's amnesty in 1986, or is that off the table for discussion? It is typical; why are you so surprised? I don't dare ask you if you think it's ok to sit on the border and snipe brown people. So then pretext stops are ok? Yea, we thought that in 1942 with Japanese-Americans..... WE WERE WRONG THEN TOO. Why? All the fascist Pig Ronnie fans gone? Hey, McSame is a HUGE FR fan, I wonder if he will vote for it? See, the whole Kerry flip-fopping rhetoric was BS, just as you have flipped in thsi thread alone. Maybe your paranoia will be determinmed to be the same as with HC death squads, there will be no anmesty bill. The sky won't fall; relax. You never did explain your waffling, was it that you saw a Republican brother getting isolated so you decided waffling was better than letting him stand alone?

Beyond that, they would be complicit if that neighbor was robbed, assaulted, murdered, etc. But that's how idiotic conservatives roll. Me, I'm a liberal who is extremely pro-gun, but I have the cooth to let others be anti-gun w/o tagging them. Just a liberal, 'live and let live' thing I guess.

Apologists for racial profiling stops....... er, wait, there is no such thing; these people have no problem with racial profiling - resume normal conversation.

3 choices for whom? The US gov or AZ? So the feds are disregarding illegal immigration? Hmm, so I guess all these billions spent are monopoly money: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2008/homeland.html Just because it isn't what you want, doesn't mean they are disregarding the problem. Maybe if your chimp in chief didn't get us into 2 illegitimate wars we would be able to focus more on homeland security. By harrassing Mexican-Americans or hell, any, let's say, Brown-American person. Right, white is right; we'll be ok so fuck others: LOUD AND CLEAR. (wink) Showing ID to buy something with a credit card, buy beer, etc isn't the same as showing ID because you're brown. POST #13 by airdvr: As much as I abhore the border problem this is not the answer. Hey, while you're at it, cook me up a couple waffles you're having; they sound good for breakfast.

This was actually a dignified country when he was a kid, I get him and respect his time and his people with their attitudes toward this country. Since the "under God" entered, the country declined, not that it had anything to do with it neccessarily, just bad timing. Turds like Reagan became neo-cons and the fools bought into it and here we have it; a mess.

No, it's already here, some stretches of freway you drive 5 miles and see 3 photo-cameras. So we're here, now we're just expanding our protocol. But piggies willbe stopping more people for driving while brown. I do and we'll see how the state courts rule, as well as the SCOTUS in following years. Right, we're a fascist dirty fucking corporate-loving nation; we hate to penalize what we cater to. If teh jobs dry up, the illegals go home or elsewhere. I'm not advocating illegal immigration and not advocating Nazi practice either, justthat illegalizing and over-enforcing issues makes them worse, as with 1920's prohibition. Who are you saying is being greedy? So we should start with civil rights deprivations for Mexican-Americans and other people of color? Dude, I live in Phoenox, not a border town but may as well be. I worl with a lot of Mexican-Americans, so might be illegals for all I know, but it's not my job to turn them in and I don't want legislation making me a cop or a criminal if I don't become one. Tell ya what, patrol teh border, build a wall if ya want, stop being such fascist good little Republicans and actually hold businesses accountable. That's my start, yours involves civil rights depravations of Mexican-Americans and others. From the party who gives us tea-bagging constitutional bla, bla, bla, ladies and gentlemen, we have hypocrisy and constitutional ignorance. OK, all I'm saying is that it's the Republican model that supports fascism/corporatism. Evidence of that is seen with the bank bailout from GWB, the stimulus from Obama. Yep, but just as we have to restore the billionaires before the little people do well after the Republican Recession, we must blame someone else for illegal immigration. Wasn't it you or was it someone else saying that the legal Mexican-Americans should dime out the illegal Mexicans? That's grouping them, I wasn't doing that, I was illustrating how many have, some in here. Sure, but I don't blame them. Also, it happens all around the world, wherever you visit if you get ill, they will care for you other than the worst of 3rd world countries. We explot them as well, many car parts are made in Maquillaroras that save us thousands, so let's be real; the exploitation works both ways. Or work toward a residents visa and ultimatley citizenship. Yea, rednecks 1, humans 0 at this point.

Having been on the other side of that on many levels, there were many lawyers that thought that about me and others, they were wrong every time. With that said, I do have issues with the reach of this bill. The only question is where to draw the line, I guess we'll be doing that in the court and on the streets for a while. Something has to be done about illegal immigration, I'm just not sure exactly what it is. The line is drawn when it starts affecting Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Rican-Americans, etc. This legis leans real hard on that, even if not in the written language, the intent to start screening the fuck out of brown people.

I can one-up that; the American Indians. The were sent to Indian Schools, had their hair cut (which is sacreligious to them), and had to accept the lovely and evil Christianity and ditch their religions or be thought of as savage beasts and killed or jailed. We have an Indian School Road here in Phx with an old Indian Scool still in place as a reminder. Oh, shall we mention the interned, err, relocated Japanese-Americans in WWII? They proved their Americaness by forming the 442nd and going thru France and Italy, cleaning out the Germans and Italians. They were fierce and many died. Of course they weren't white, so they weren't real Americans

No, it's already here, some stretches of freway you drive 5 miles and see 3 photo-cameras. So we're here, now we're just expanding our protocol. But piggies willbe stopping more people for driving while brown. I do and we'll see how the state courts rule, as well as the SCOTUS in following years. Right, we're a fascist dirty fucking corporate-loving nation; we hate to penalize what we cater to. If teh jobs dry up, the illegals go home or elsewhere. I'm not advocating illegal immigration and not advocating Nazi practice either, justthat illegalizing and over-enforcing issues makes them worse, as with 1920's prohibition. Who are you saying is being greedy? So we should start with civil rights deprivations for Mexican-Americans and other people of color? Dude, I live in Phoenox, not a border town but may as well be. I worl with a lot of Mexican-Americans, so might be illegals for all I know, but it's not my job to turn them in and I don't want legislation making me a cop or a criminal if I don't become one. Tell ya what, patrol teh border, build a wall if ya want, stop being such fascist good little Republicans and actually hold businesses accountable. That's my start, yours involves civil rights depravations of Mexican-Americans and others. From the party who gives us tea-bagging constitutional bla, bla, bla, ladies and gentlemen, we have hypocrisy and constitutional ignorance.

No, it's already here, some stretches of freway you drive 5 miles and see 3 photo-cameras. So we're here, now we're just expanding our protocol. But piggies willbe stopping more people for driving while brown. I do and we'll see how the state courts rule, as well as the SCOTUS in following years. Right, we're a fascist dirty fucking corporate-loving nation; we hate to penalize what we cater to. If teh jobs dry up, the illegals go home or elsewhere. I'm not advocating illegal immigration and not advocating Nazi practice either, justthat illegalizing and over-enforcing issues makes them worse, as with 1920's prohibition.

First, I'll admit that I didn't read all 17 pages of the bill (just skimmed it)... But from what I did read, I didn't see anything that looked like it gave the police permission to stop people based on what they look like, if they're not doing anything wrong. Did I miss something? http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. ______________________________ 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE. (all brown people must prove citizenship) _____________________________ I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH. (Now we of course have to immunize piggies) _____________________________ K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE: 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER. 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT. (See, being a fasist nation we have to protect our businesses/corporations) ________________________________ 4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW. (So that means anyone who comes in contact with a person who *might* be an illegal alien runs the risk of being a criminal. In Mexican-American communities where a lot of people run together, if 1 rents a room, the entire household is subject to being criminalized because they should have known.) ____________________________________ I see it as dangerous in many ways. If the local admin and the feds had cracked down more on employers that would have fixed it.

Are you F'N kidding? Cops have sooooooo much lattitude it's sick. If they kill someone, they at most lose their badge in most cases. That's a prosecutorial issue, not LEO. And again, the courts, esp the trial courts in neck states are really right-leaning. As well, you kinda support my fascist argument in that the gov doesn't wanna charge business, esp large business = fascism / corporatism. It'snot their job, just as I have no duty to report unless a special relationship exists. That doesn't go as far as making it legal to give aid to illegals. Do you want to pass laws requiring people to turn other sin? Me thinks you don't. Apparently you're not reading well, let me make this perfectly clear: THE ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO ARE ALOS LEGAL US CITIZENS VIA BIRTH OR NATURALIZATION WILL BE TARGETED, STOPPED W/O PC/RS, AND HARRASSED. Did that clear it up for you? No one that I give credit to is defending the illegals, I'm sure some fnatical groups are, I just don't agree with them. So is your answer to state that brown = PC/RS? Please answer, is it your notion / assertion that if cops get a free-brown card, that is, anyone brown can be stopped whether on foot or in a car w/o any cause whatsoever and asked for papers? Please answer. Right, so one demonizes the otehr, but either way they are all one in the same, right? I just see how you can logically tie togther a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or higher generation Mexican-American to an illegal alien. I mean I see why people do it, but it just isn't logical. Many legal Mexican-Americans dislike illegal immigration, does that mean they should be required to turn in those they know of or be facing criminal charges themselves? Does that mean they shoudl be subject to harrassing stops because they happen to look like illegals? HYPOTHETICAL: Mexico discovers massive amounts of light sweet crude, they become vastly rich as a nation and no longer wnat to come to fascist-land. Now Canada encounters political/financial problems and they want assylum here and many sneak over the border. Do we go after those GD Canadian illegal immigrants, or is it ok since they're white? This question is rhetorical, I know the answer from most Americans, esp in neck states. OK, so teh problem here is one of statutory language or prosecutorial incompetence; let's fix the problem, not new ones. FUCK YES, AS THEY WISH. Which is what I said, many brown skinned people don't like illegals, but they don't want to be harrassed due to the gov being too incompetent, refusing to punish businesses, etc. We agree there is a problem, giving pigs free run to stop w/o PC/RS is very dangerous. Really? I guess all these billions: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2008/homeland.html Aren't real. Knee-jerk as in what? Do you mean over reaction to the law that will be in effect in a little over 90 days? Yea, whenever Nazi laws are enacted, there is often great reation to them. The tea baggers down your way would cconsider the HC law in teh same light, I guess you don't see it that way. OK, so to enact a law that allows for cops to pull over or otherwise stop any brown person to ask for papers will fix this? It won't abridge any civil rights? Me knows you don't understand the definition of 'civil rights' which explains volumes. http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. So you see not having your house broken into isn't a protectcion under civil rights as you claim. I see teh 14th is there, that requires equal protection for all citizens and your law invades that, so you're right about civil rights, you just missaplied it.

Kinda like legalizing drugs, makes shipping them in unprofitable. Coyotes would be put out of work if immigration became easier/ more possible. Like the Chinese Exclusion Act? The way it works is that those outside who want to come in, think it should be easier, once inside, make it harder. Simple hypocrisy. Kinda like, why do we have to have algebra with many univ desgrees that are not science-related? But once we get our degree, let's make it harder for the others, right? It's about makimg things exclusive. So no Mexicans have immigrated legally? No Canadians / W.E. have immigrated illegally? Now I underastand. It really is more of an assylum than it is immigration, insane how people flock to a fascist nation, Mexico must be that fucked up. I bet Canadian and W.E. emigration is far lower than it has been ever.

why would we do that when we have 10% unemployment? why not let the citizens work and make the rest come here legally and become citizens. why should we give our jobs to non citizens? A) Most jobs they take US citizens don't want B) This issue isn't since your president/party fucked everything up, illgal imigtaion has been an issue forever. Reagan's fix was to just make them all legal, wanna do that?

Kinda like legalizing drugs, makes shipping them in unprofitable. Coyotes would be put out of work if immigration became easier/ more possible.

Are you F'N kidding? Cops have sooooooo much lattitude it's sick. If they kill someone, they at most lose their badge in most cases. That's a prosecutorial issue, not LEO. And again, the courts, esp the trial courts in neck states are really right-leaning. As well, you kinda support my fascist argument in that the gov doesn't wanna charge business, esp large business = fascism / corporatism. It'snot their job, just as I have no duty to report unless a special relationship exists. That doesn't go as far as making it legal to give aid to illegals. Do you want to pass laws requiring people to turn other sin? Me thinks you don't. Apparently you're not reading well, let me make this perfectly clear: THE ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO ARE ALOS LEGAL US CITIZENS VIA BIRTH OR NATURALIZATION WILL BE TARGETED, STOPPED W/O PC/RS, AND HARRASSED. Did that clear it up for you? No one that I give credit to is defending the illegals, I'm sure some fnatical groups are, I just don't agree with them. So is your answer to state that brown = PC/RS? Please answer, is it your notion / assertion that if cops get a free-brown card, that is, anyone brown can be stopped whether on foot or in a car w/o any cause whatsoever and asked for papers? Please answer. Right, so one demonizes the otehr, but either way they are all one in the same, right? I just see how you can logically tie togther a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or higher generation Mexican-American to an illegal alien. I mean I see why people do it, but it just isn't logical. Many legal Mexican-Americans dislike illegal immigration, does that mean they should be required to turn in those they know of or be facing criminal charges themselves? Does that mean they shoudl be subject to harrassing stops because they happen to look like illegals? HYPOTHETICAL: Mexico discovers massive amounts of light sweet crude, they become vastly rich as a nation and no longer wnat to come to fascist-land. Now Canada encounters political/financial problems and they want assylum here and many sneak over the border. Do we go after those GD Canadian illegal immigrants, or is it ok since they're white? This question is rhetorical, I know the answer from most Americans, esp in neck states. OK, so teh problem here is one of statutory language or prosecutorial incompetence; let's fix the problem, not new ones. FUCK YES, AS THEY WISH. Which is what I said, many brown skinned people don't like illegals, but they don't want to be harrassed due to the gov being too incompetent, refusing to punish businesses, etc. We agree there is a problem, giving pigs free run to stop w/o PC/RS is very dangerous.

Are you F'N kidding? Cops have sooooooo much lattitude it's sick. If they kill someone, they at most lose their badge in most cases. That's a prosecutorial issue, not LEO. And again, the courts, esp the trial courts in neck states are really right-leaning. As well, you kinda support my fascist argument in that the gov doesn't wanna charge business, esp large business = fascism / corporatism. It'snot their job, just as I have no duty to report unless a special relationship exists. That doesn't go as far as making it legal to give aid to illegals. Do you want to pass laws requiring people to turn other sin? Me thinks you don't. Apparently you're not reading well, let me make this perfectly clear: THE ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO ARE ALOS LEGAL US CITIZENS VIA BIRTH OR NATURALIZATION WILL BE TARGETED, STOPPED W/O PC/RS, AND HARRASSED. Did that clear it up for you? No one that I give credit to is defending the illegals, I'm sure some fnatical groups are, I just don't agree with them. So is your answer to state that brown = PC/RS? Please answer, is it your notion / assertion that if cops get a free-brown card, that is, anyone brown can be stopped whether on foot or in a car w/o any cause whatsoever and asked for papers? Please answer. since you are so smart give some examples of how to fix this problem that would protect the citizens without getting the aclu involved. W/o getting the ACLU involved = a sarcastic way of saying: FUCK CIVIL RIGHTS. This isn't utopia, we will always have crime. It's about the positioning of the bar, if you want it lowered and have the piggies raid your wife's panty drawer when you're gone, they will raid everyones and find contraband, so that will reduce crime as it removes privacy. Oh wait, strict constitutionalists, we have no right to privacy, it is no where in the Articles, Preamble or Amendments. Anyway, you rais teh bar too high and civil right infringements are not an issue, but too many crimes go unpunished. So pick your flavor, but try not to say: FUCK BROWN PEOPLE, WHITE IS RIGHT; AS LONG AS THEY FUCK WITH OTHER DEMOGRAPHICS IT'S FAIR AND CONSTITUTIONAL. We need to protect everyone's civil rights to ensure we keep our own. Examples of fixing teh problem is more border security for many reasons, mostly terrorism-related. Employer sanctions is a great place to start, see, business in teh US is inherently sleazy, they operate on profit; fuck people. So if it becomes more expensive to operate withj illegals then they will try to exploit another area.

maybe the legal ones should help and give a rats ass about america Maybe, but do you want a law making it a crime to not report a crime that you have knowledge of? That means the uncle who leaves a little drunk, you have knowldege of it, you fail to report, now you're a ciminal. The pothead nephew of yours (hypothetically) or the sister's kid's bf/gf who is a druggy, well, you better turn em in cause if they get busted and it can be proven that you ahve knowldege of it, well, you're now a criminal under your new law.